Ok so we have all heard the rumors about Greinke. Reports just came out today that the Angels have dropped out of the race. Basically what it has come down to is the Dodgers (who have a ridiculous amount of money with a new TV deal) and the Rangers. There could also be a dark horse team as we all know, but unlikely just because it looks as though Greinke wants the second largest contract in baseball history for a starter.

From what he is asking for 6 years at $150 million would put him even above the contract Johan Santana signed with the Mets back in 2007 at 6 years $137.5 million.

Now we all know I am a big numbers person, bang for buck, and evaluating value in later parts of the contract versus rookies, and what else the alternative could be for a cheaper replacement.

Santana was a 2 time Cy Young winner, he was also a 3 time All-Star. Also, at the time he signed the contract he was coming fresh off an MVP, the Cy Young, All-Star, and lead the league in both wins, ERA, innings pitched AND strikeouts ALL in the same season. Not a bad contract year.

Greinke, has only had one season in 8 years where he has finished under a 3.47 ERA, in actuality has a 3.77 career ERA. He has never lead the league in another category besides having a 2.19 ERA in his lone CY Young winning season 3 years removed.

So, my question is, in what world does this guy command a $150 million 6 year deal? I know the Dodgers will give it to him, but still? I can't believe he is even able to command that much?

The Rangers need a clear cut starter, but again, is this going to be worth it? Would they not be better off trading for a younger cheaper stud, developing Darvish, Feliz, and Ogando? Maybe look at a Jon Lester or someone?

I am extremely hesitant of where these huge contracts can go. Just ask the Mets about Santana. He looked worth it at the time, with double the stats of Greinke but as it stands now it hasn't made them an elite team. Sabathia has been solid, but worth $30 million a year? Don't even get started on Barry Zito.

Here is an interesting group of analysis looking at the $100+ million contracts for pitchers in MLB history and how they have worked out.

That being said, Hamels was not a $100 million pitcher for the Phillies when they won, and Cain had just signed this year when they won. Other than that, no pitcher on this list has contributed a World Series victory to ANY of their teams. As a matter of fact most of the contracts have ended in dismal failure.

11-27-2012, 05:02 PM

Jack of Blades

He can go **** himself if he really thinks he's gonna get the Rangers to cough up $150 million.

11-27-2012, 05:13 PM

asmarks18

150 is way too much but there comes a time where our ownership has to nut up or shut up. We need a guy of his caliber as we all know. Somethings gotta give. Your top prospect for Price or emptying your pocket book for Greinke. We need an ace.

11-27-2012, 08:04 PM

vigilantex69

Holy crap. Seriously, if the Dodgers want to spend $400 million on a baseball payroll then we should let them have at it. Free spending teams never win it all, just look at the Yankees, Marlins, Mets, Phillies, it never works out.

Quote:

Buster Olney of ESPN.com was told by a person involved in the Zack Greinke talks that there is a "good chance" his new contract is worth more than CC Sabathia's record record $161 million deal.
Jim Bowden of ESPN.com and Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com previously reported that the deal could be in the six-year, $150 million range, and evidently it might end up being higher than that. With the Angels reportedly out of the mix, the spend-happy Dodgers look like the clear favorites to land the right-hander. The Rangers are also in the mix.

For a guy with his stats, his age, and his mixed up and down ERA, no 3.50 ERA pitcher is worth $160 million. Greinke is a $120 million 5 year pitcher at best. He is also one of those Barry Zito type aces that could have extremely up or down seasons, he is not at all a Santana, Sabathia, or Verlander type ace. He isn't even in the same category as Felix Hernandez.

11-27-2012, 10:27 PM

Young2Kinsler

6 for 132 would be MAX to me, and that's high.

11-27-2012, 10:38 PM

Skizzik

I'm split. First off, it should be noted, Greinke is better than just his ERA, here's a great article from ESPN Insider (quoting the whole thing since most don't have insider access):

Quote:

With the exception of the shocking Miami Marlins trade and a few relatively small signings, the first few weeks of MLB's offseason have been relatively quiet so far.

However, because baseball is flush with cash thanks to new media deals that double MLB's yearly take from national television, many teams won't be in the mood to be stingy. When baseball's executives descend upon Nashville in two weeks for the winter meetings, enough zeroes and commas will be bandied about to wear out computer keyboards. One of this year's big prizes, Zack Greinke, stands well positioned to benefit from the flow of dollars.

That Greinke is headed for a big payday is no surprise to anyone paying attention, but the question is, just how much is the 29-year-old worth, and how much he can get? A close look at his numbers reveals a pitcher who is as good as any other in baseball and could end up being the bargain of the winter. Allow me to explain.

One of the X factors surrounding Greinke has to do with his ERA, which hasn't been at the level of an elite pitcher the past few years. After a 16-8, 2.16 season for the Royals that netted Greinke a well-deserved Cy Young Award in 2009, his run-prevention statistics just haven't been anywhere near that level. Nobody's going to send a pink slip to a pitcher with 41 wins and a 3.83 ERA over three years, but on the surface, those aren't typically the stats of a pitcher you break the bank for. Greinke's 3.83 ERA, when compared to league average, comes to an ERA+ of only 106, a number more typically seen from a weak No. 2 starter rather than an ace.
Greinke's future

Advanced statistics, however, tell a different story. Of the 116 pitchers with 500 innings over the past five years, Greinke's FIP -- which is scaled to ERA and focuses on strikeouts, walks and other things a pitcher can control -- ranks sixth in baseball (3.05), a figure more in line with someone you could consider an ace.

While FIP and similar peripheral-based statistics are very useful predictive tools, it's one thing to play armchair GM when discussing Greinke and another thing to be using your own money when trying to prove Greinke's FIP provides a more accurate description of his abilities.

Over a long career, external factors that affect a pitcher's statistics will usually even out to an extent, but over a five-year period, you can't count on simply hoping that everything came out on the wash. Enter Greinke.

He hasn't played for random teams over the past half-decade, he's (mostly) played for the Kansas City Royals and Milwaukee Brewers, teams with two of the worst defenses in baseball during that time. Over those five years, by UZR, Greinke's defenses have been 87 runs worse than league average, helping explain some of the discordance between his basic and advanced stats. With league-average defenses, one would expect an extra 0.1 improvement in Greinke's ERA, nearly one-third of the difference between 3.05 FIP and 3.39 ERA over the past five years.

His bullpens have also not generally not done him any favors. Milwaukee had a solid 'pen in 2011, but outside of that season, Greinke's bullpens have generally been abysmal. From the distributions of Greinke's runners, I estimate that a league-average bullpen would have stranded 14 more of Greinke's runners, and his average bullpen had an ERA a half-run per game worse than league-average, enough to inflate his ERA by 0.15 more.

Given simply ordinary support, Greinke's five-year ERA improves from 3.39 to 3.14, just a hair worse than his 3.05 FIP.

What Greinke's disappointing ERA -- relatively speaking, of course -- means is that he ends up undervalued by the market. Assuming $4.9 million for a marginal win on the free-agent market and 5 percent growth a year (actually conservative as MLB has tended to beat that figure), ZiPS projects the retail price of Greinke's performance to be $118 million over six years in a neutral park. Insider's Jim Bowden projects Greinke to get $117 million over six years, which is right in line with that projection. However, it's much less money than pitchers like Cole Hamels (six years, $144 million) and Matt Cain (six years, $127.5 million) received in the past year, and Greinke is every bit the pitcher they are.

Extra wins are most valuable to teams in the 80-90 win range, as each win added significantly increases the odds of making the playoffs, and a team in that position can find good reason to pay Greinke even more.

Signing Greinke would be a coup for a team such as the Baltimore Orioles or Los Angeles Angels, two teams in tough divisions that have gaping holes in their rotations. Fortune favors the bold, and giving Hamels-type money to Greinke would be bold. Money comes and goes, but flags fly forever.

Now, on to business. Trying to compare contracts of the past with current ones is a poor choice. The TV contracts being handed out in baseball are slowly beginning to spread to more teams and will increase payrolls across the league dramatically. Which means, teams will pay more for top tier talent. I promise you, over the next few years, expect the value of average and elite players to rise drastically.

On top of that, having a new Yankees like spender in the Dodgers will also drive up market prices. The Rangers NEED another elite pitcher (I consider Yu elite, his advanced stats, like Greinke's, tell a different story than basic stats - and Harrison is a solid #2). But we need someone like Greinke. And all it costs is cash, not any other asset. Cash is replaceable and the Rangers can afford it. I would absolutely go in for Greinke at $160M. It sounds awful right now, but in four years, I truly believe that will sound like a bargain.

11-28-2012, 03:56 PM

Sevilla91

Do it Do it Do it Do it

The cost isnt the issue, the return is the issue when spending the money. Zach is 29, has killer ERA at rangers stadium and is killer vs the AL west. Do you think the Giants are pissed they spent so much on Cain? me either. Having Darvish and Zack 1-2 for 5 years is better than having hamilton and beltre 3-5 for 5 more years. Texas finds ways to get hitters, pitchers not so much.

11-28-2012, 04:27 PM

Skizzik

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevilla91

Do it Do it Do it Do it

The cost isnt the issue, the return is the issue when spending the money. Zach is 29, has killer ERA at rangers stadium and is killer vs the AL west. Do you think the Giants are pissed they spent so much on Cain? me either. Having Darvish and Zack 1-2 for 5 years is better than having hamilton and beltre 3-5 for 5 more years. Texas finds ways to get hitters, pitchers not so much.

Well, as I said. I don't even think cost is really a solid argument anymore. Expect to see rampant inflation in the VERY near future. With another multi-billion dollar TV deal being handed out...there's that much more money in the majors. And even worse, more of those TV contracts will keep coming. Every team in baseball will be asking for comparable contracts whenever their current deals are up. Some teams (see: Miami and Tampa) won't land billion dollar deals, but most will.

11-28-2012, 07:09 PM

Sevilla91

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skizzik

Well, as I said. I don't even think cost is really a solid argument anymore. Expect to see rampant inflation in the VERY near future. With another multi-billion dollar TV deal being handed out...there's that much more money in the majors. And even worse, more of those TV contracts will keep coming. Every team in baseball will be asking for comparable contracts whenever their current deals are up. Some teams (see: Miami and Tampa) won't land billion dollar deals, but most will.

Most teams will not get a huge TV contract

11-28-2012, 07:56 PM

stipe1280

asmarks is 100% dead on.

People need to stop looking at value for $ when it comes to top players honestly. Too often, when dealing with these kind of pricetags it simply is going to come down to risk involved and nobody knows when an injury will pop up, etc.

The question the Rangers should be asking is this...How often will we get a chance at a top of the rotation type of pitcher? We got Cliff Lee and let him walk. We got Yu Darvish, who looks great, but still has a lot to prove. Now we're seeing teams re-sign their top young aces to long contracts early and even teams like Seattle, who could use 3,4,5 good players on their team for the cost of Felix, aren't moving him.

To me, Greinke would never be my first option if given a list of the top 10 best pitchers in the game today. But he is the best option available to us right now...unless you want Price. But...why deal your best prospect (Profar) for Price, when you can simply spend the $$$ you'll be getting from your TV deal, your increased attendance, your two AL title runs and your savings from letting other big names walk on a guy like Greinke, who is a legit top of the rotation starter?

I'm so sick of this team and it's fans being stuck in Hicks mode, where we have to be cheap and resourceful to field a team. We have the money. Now the team needs to shut up and spend some of it.

11-28-2012, 08:52 PM

slugger82685

If we cant land Price then Greinke is a must. He is far and above the best pitcher available in terms of stuff and age. Will he cost a ton? of course he will, its all about supply and demand, there is a shortage of young top pitchers to be had through both the free agent and trade markets so of course he is going to seek a king's ransom and will likely get it. The Dodgers really worry me about trying to land any player at all, they do not care about the money if they can make their team better and we act like we are on a tight budget.

11-28-2012, 08:57 PM

vigilantex69

The Zips analysis is an interesting argument, but honestly I am pretty old school with an ERA is an ERA. You can nickel and dime with witchcraft all you want but ERA has always and will always be a very good indicator of how a pitcher does. That also being said, wins are absolutely the most garbage statistic to use when judging a pitcher.

11-28-2012, 09:01 PM

vigilantex69

I mean that also being said, as far as ACEs go, after next season the only young legitimate pitcher that will be available for a top of the line starter is Matt Garza.

11-28-2012, 09:26 PM

Skizzik

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevilla91

Most teams will not get a huge TV contract

I beg to differ. I'd argue very few teams won't get at least a billion dollar deal for their next deal. Remember, this isn't a billion dollars all tomorrow. It's spread over MANY years. But it's still a huge influx of money in to the league.

11-29-2012, 01:54 PM

BigDFan85

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevilla91

Do it Do it Do it Do it

The cost isnt the issue, the return is the issue when spending the money. Zach is 29, has killer ERA at rangers stadium and is killer vs the AL west. Do you think the Giants are pissed they spent so much on Cain? me either. Having Darvish and Zack 1-2 for 5 years is better than having hamilton and beltre 3-5 for 5 more years. Texas finds ways to get hitters, pitchers not so much.

Matt Cain has proven his worth. He is an absolute stud in the playoffs too. He probably could have gotten more money on the open market. There is very good reasoning as to why the Giants aren't pissed they spent that much on Cain.